Feasibility and safety of zero‐fluoroscopy left bundle branch pacing: An initial experience

• Published in: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology Vol. 34; no. 2; pp. 429 - 436
• Main Authors: Ramos‐Maqueda, Javier, Melero‐Polo, Jorge, Montilla‐Padilla, Isabel, Ruiz‐Arroyo, José Ramón, Cabrera‐Ramos, Mercedes
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.02.2023; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: 3D intracardiac navigation system; Aged; Bundle of His; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - adverse effects; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods; Clinical trials; Electrocardiography - methods; Feasibility Studies; Fluoroscopy; Humans; left bundle branch pacing; Male; Middle Aged; Original; pacemaker; Pacemakers; physiological pacing; Prospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; zero fluoroscopy; physiological pacing; pacemaker; 3D intracardiac navigation system; left bundle branch pacing; zero fluoroscopy
• ISSN: 1045-3873; 1540-8167
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.15765

Introduction Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged in recent years as a new pacing modality, providing patients with a narrower paced QRS than conventional pacing and stable pacing parameters. At the same time, there is a growing concern about the use of fluoroscopy in pacemaker implantations, given its harmful effects on both patients and operators. However, there are no prior experiences of zero‐fluoroscopy in LBBP procedure. Methods We conducted an observational prospective study recruiting consecutive patients that underwent zero‐fluoroscopy LBBP pacemaker implantation. A 6‐month follow‐up visit was programmed for every patient. The main goal of our study was to assess the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of the procedure. Results From January 2021 to February 2022, we included 10 patients, 8 males. The average age was 63 ± 4 years. The procedure was successful in all patients. We observed a significant reduction in paced QRS width compared with basal QRS width (149 ± 31.9 vs. 116 ± 15.6 ms, p = .02). All device parameters remained stable at 6‐month follow‐up: no significant differences in mean impedance (700.5 ± 136.4 vs. 494 ± 72.7 Ohm, p = .09), capture threshold (0.67 ± 0.2 vs. 0.83 ± 0.2 V @ 0.4 ms, p = .27) or endocardial V‐wave amplitude (10.6 ± 5.2 vs. 13.9 ± 6.3 mV, p = .19). No complications were reported in any case. Conclusion Zero‐fluoroscopy LBBP is feasible and safe, and it may be considered in cases where radiation exposure is contraindicated or especially undesirable. Future randomized clinical trials are needed for the widespread use of this new technique. A, D: Right anterior oblique views of the anatomical map of the right atrium and right ventricle from patients 1 and 2. B,E: Left anterior oblique views. C: paced QRS with the mapping catheter from left bundle area with “W” morphology, marked with green tags in the map. F: paced QRS from the final position of the electrode. His bundle are marked with yellow tags in the map. SVC: superior vena cava. RA: right atrium. RV: right ventricle. CS: coronary sinus. RAA: right atrial appendage